City, University of London Institutional Repository

Citation: Hohl, K., Stanko, B. and Newburn, T. (2013). The Effect of the 2011 London Disorder on Public Opinion of Police and Attitudes Towards Crime, Disorder, and Sentencing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 7(1), pp. 12-20. doi: 10.1093/police/pas055

This is the accepted version of the paper.

This version of the publication may differ from the final published version.

Permanent repository link: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/4488/

Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/police/pas055

Copyright and reuse: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to.

City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk

City Research Online

The effect of the 2011 London disorder on public opinion of police and attitudes

towards crime, disorder and sentencing

Katrin Hohl, Department of Sociology, City University London*

Betsy Stanko, Metropolitan Police London

Tim Newburn, Department of Social Policy,

Abstract

How did the 2011 London disorder affect Londoners? This article presents the findings from

a study on the impact of the disorder on Londoners’ attitudes towards the police, sentencing,

crime and disorder, using Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey (METPAS) data from

the weeks before and after the disorder. The findings suggest that while public confidence

remained largely steady, confidence is lower (and already was lower prior to the disorder) in

those areas of London what were hit hardest by the disorder. We also observe a substantial

shift towards greater punitiveness and authoritarian viewpoints following the disorder.

Key words: policing and public opinion, London disorders, punitiveness

*Corresponding author: Katrin.Hohl.1@city.ac.uk

Introduction

During three long days in August 2011, London experienced what was described as the most

serious disorder in a generation (HMIC 2011). Following a shooting in North London, it took

three days of simmering resentment to explode into pitched battles between some members of

the public and the police. During just a few days, widespread television coverage brought the

looting and burning into the homes of Londoners and others around the world. Details of the

hows and whys of the disorders have been debated by many forums (see for example, Riots,

Communities and Victims Panel 2012). The purpose of this paper is to explore how the

policing of the disorder impacted on the views of resident Londoners.

Government and other research on the disorder have thus far focused on those immediately

caught up in the disorder: the participants and the victims. The disorder – through widespread

on the third night in particular – was very locally based. MPS’ own postcode analysis of the

reported crime on the nights shows that just under 1% of the London postcodes were

immediately affected by disorder or looting (according to police-recorded incidents) and less

than .05% of Londoners reported being victimised.i Yet, the impact of the disorder was much

wider, as it was the focus of 24 hour news, on site news coverage and continuous

commentary during these days in August 2011.

In this article, we examine how the disorder affected the citizens of London with regards to

their trust in the police and their attitudes towards crime, disorder and sentencing. We draw

on data from the Public Attitude Survey of the Metropolitan Police London, a large-scale,

continuous, population-representative survey of Londonersii. The survey was in the field

during the disorder, and in the weeks following and leading up to it.

Background

The 2011 disorders were unprecedented in scale and media coverage in the UK. Traditional,

new and social media intensively reported and commented on the disorder and its aftermath.

Previous studies of police-related high profile events on public opinions of the police are few

and provide mixed evidence as to their impact on the public. Weitzer (2002) studied the

impact of the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles in 1991 on public perceptions of the

police, a case of racist police misconduct known to 85%-95% of the population according to

survey data. Weitzer also studied the impact of three similarly mediatised and widely known

cases of racist police misconduct in New York in the late 1990s. Weitzer found a fairly large

initial impact, in particular amongst ethnic minorities. However, the observed opinion change

was temporary and public confidence returned to its prior level a few years later. Miller et al.

(2004) combined a media analysis with data from a police user satisfaction survey and a

general public opinion survey over a nine-month time span. Over this relatively short time

period, which was free of high profile incidents, the authors did not find evidence of a media

impact on attitudes. Whilst media coverage fluctuated, public opinions of the police remained

stable. The authors conclude that there seems to be a ‘buffering’ zone of public confidence, a

certain range in which media reporting can oscillate without translating into changes in public

opinion. Beyond media exposure, many Londoners will have had vicarious experience –

hearing from family members, neighbours and friends – with how the disorders were policed,

and one might suspect that this may have had an effect on their opinion of the police:

Rosenbaum et al. (2005) found that vicarious experience has a similarly strong effect on trust

in the police as direct encounters with police.

How has the London 2011 disorder affected public opinion in London? In this study, we

examine how public confidence in the police, perception of crime and disorder, and attitudes

towards sentencing compare in the weeks before and after the disorder. Confidence in the

police can be defined as a belief about the competence and capabilities of the police to fulfil

and act according to their specific roles. It can be decomposed into three dimensions: (a)

perceptions of police engagement with the needs and concerns of the community and

perceiving that the police represent and defend society’s shared values and norms (b)

perceptions of the police treating people equally, with fairness and respect in direct

encounters (c) perceptions of police competence (effectiveness) in dealing with crime.

Empirical studies show that these three dimensions are distinct yet related, and closely tied to

confidence (Stanko and Bradford 2009, Bradford and Jackson 2010, Bradford et al., 2009,

Jackson and Bradford 2010).

The study

We use survey data from the Public Attitude Survey of the Metropolitan Police London

(METPAS). Face-to-face interviews are held continuously throughout the year, with roughly

1,000 interviews held per month and a total annual sample size of 12,000 respondents. The

survey uses a random sampling procedure and is representative of Londoners aged 16 and

over. The METPAS includes a wide range of questions on experiences, perceptions and

attitudes towards the police and crime, and also collects socio-demographic data. In addition

to the survey, we use Metropolitan police crime records of the number of incidents in each

postcode and borough during the summer disorder in the analysis. The following survey

measures are included in the analysis:

Public confidence in the police is measured using the standard single item question ‘How

good a job are the police doing in this local area?’ Respondents are asked to answer this

question on rating scale from 1=‘very poor’ to 5= ‘excellent’.

Self-reported changes in public opinion: Respondents are asked whether the policing of the

disorder have changed their opinion of the police, with five response options indicating

whether their opinion has improved, worsened, remained unchanged positive or unchanged

negative. A ‘don’t know’ response is provided.

The survey measures three components of trust and confidence in the police, trust in police

community engagement, procedural fairness and police effectiveness with several items.

Based on the set of items for each component we estimate a separate one-factor model for

each of the three components using maximum likelihood estimation and, based on the factor

loadings, calculate factor scores via the Bartlett method of regression.

Police community engagement: The score is based on four items. Respondents rate on a five-

point scale to what extent they feel the police listen to the concerns of the local people,

understand the issues that affect the community, are dealing with things that matter to the

community and, finally, can be relied upon to be there when you need them.

Police fairness: Using the same five-point agreement scale, respondents rate the extent to

which they feel that the police treat everyone fairly regardless of who they are, would treat

the respondent with respect if they had contact with them for any reason, are friendly and

approachable and are helpful.

Police effectiveness: Respondents rate on a seven-point scale how well the police are doing in

tackling gun crime, supporting victims and witnesses, policing major events in London,

tackling dangerous driving and responding to emergencies promptly.

Perceptions of crime and disorder: Respondents rate to what extent they perceive general

crime, general violence, knife crime, drug dealing and using, vandalism and graffiti and

teenagers hanging around are a problem in their local area. Responses have been

dichotomised into ‘a problem’ and ‘no problem/don’t know’.

Punitiveness and authoritarianism: Respondents rate on a five-point scale from ‘strongly

agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ (with a don’t know option) to what extent they agree with the

statements that ‘people who break the law should be given stiffer sentences’ and ‘young

people today don’t have enough respect for traditional values’.

In the analysis we use the following socio-demographic variables: gender, age, ethnicity,

work status, police contact within the past 12 months (coded as ‘no contact’, ‘negative

contact experience’ and ‘positive /neutral contact experience’) and victimisation of crime or

anti-social behaviour within the past 12 months.

Results

Public confidence in the police, measured here with the standard ‘good job’ question, plays a

central role in public support for the police and willingness to cooperate with the police.

Table 1 shows the percentage of respondents feeling the police are doing a ‘good’ or

excellent’ job in their local area before and after the disorder, alongside the respondents’

(post-disorder) self-evaluation of how the policing of the disorder has affected their opinion

of the police.

- TABLE 1 NEAR HERE -

Based on respondents’ self-reports, the way the disorder was policed has changed public

opinion of police in 25% of the population. This pattern holds across age, gender, ethnic and

socio-economic groups, including the group with the most strained relationship with police,

young Black and Ethnic minority men under the age of 24.iii

Yet, according to the ‘good-job’

measure, the disorder had no statistically significant effect on Londoner’s overall confidence

in the police. This may be explained by the observed near 50-50 split between those who say

the policing of the disorder has improved their opinion of the police (14%), and those say it

has worsened their opinion of the police (11%). This finding suggests that the policing of the

disorder has divided the public – a roughly even split between a more positive and a more

negative view of the police as a result of the policing of the disorder, and most respondents

(75%) feeling confirmed in their prior - positive or negative - view of the police.

Looking more closely at sub-groups of the population we find a pattern that is well

established in the literature (Bradford 2011, Bradford et al. 2009, Flatley et al. 2010, Roberts

and Hough 2005, Skogan 1990). Those who are young, of lower socio-economic status, of

Black or mixed ethnicity, recent victims of crime or who have had a negative experience with

police tend to have lower confidence in the police. Following the disorder, we observe a

statistically significant 11% drop in confidence amongst those aged 35-44 (and a similar

increase in the age bracket above) and an 8% drop in the confidence of the most well-off

socio-economic group (SEG a+b). However, these changes are still within a range that

preserves the pattern in confidence described above.

In sum, our broad-brush indicators suggest that the disorder did change public opinion of the

police for a quarter of the respondents. The sub-group analysis suggests that these changes

were of similar magnitude across population sub-groups. On the aggregate level, these

opinion changes largely cancelled each other out. Only the confidence of the middle-aged and

high socio-economic status groups took a statistically significant knock. However, these

changes are within a range that preserves the existing pattern of confidence being lowest

amongst the young, less well-off, Blacks, victims and those with negative police contact

experiences.

- TABLE 2 NEAR HERE –

Moving from a socio-demographic to a geographical perspective, Table 2 shows pre- and

post-disorder differences in public opinion according to the number of police-recorded

disorder-related incidents in a respondent’s borough. Boroughs have been grouped into three

categories: less than 50 disorder-related incidents (e.g. Hammersmith and Fulham, Kingston,

and Richmond, the only borough with less than five disorder-related incidents), 50-100

incidents (e.g. Barnet, Brent, Camden, Islington, Redbridge) and those with over 100

incidents (e.g. Croydon, Lewisham, Lambeth, Haringey, Waltham Forest).

We observe a statistically significant drop in trust in police effectiveness in the boroughs with

the highest number of disorder-related incidents, and a statistically significant decline in trust

in police procedural fairness in the boroughs with low or medium numbers of disorder-related

incidents. These changes are small in magnitude. Striking, however, are the differences in

public trust and confidence in the police that already existed prior to the disorder:

respondents living in boroughs hit hardest by the disorder had substantially lower confidence

in the police locally and London-wide prior to the disorder (and still do after). They also had

substantially lower trust in police procedural fairness (treatment) and police community

engagement prior to the disorder (and still after) – the two factors the confidence model

identifies as the main drivers of overall confidence in the police (Stanko and Bradford 2009,

Stanko et al. 2012).

- TABLE 3 NEAR HERE -

Turning to the effect of the disorder on public attitudes of crime and disorder, Table 3 shows

the percentage of respondents that perceive a range of crime and disorder issues as a problem

in their local area, again sub-divided according to the number of disorder-related incidents in

the respondent’s borough. There are no statistically significant changes observed in public

perceptions of graffiti, vandalism, teenagers hanging around, drug dealing and selling or

knife crime being a problem in the local area. The percentage of respondents that perceive

general crime and general violence as a problem in their area increased by a statistically

significant 12% in the boroughs only mildly affected by the disorder. No statistically

significant changes are observed in the boroughs that had a medium or high number of

disorder-related incidents. Overall, there is no evidence that the disorder changed

respondents’ perception of crime and disorder problems. Rather, the disorder stirred punitive

sentiments.

- TABLE 4 NEAR HERE -

Table 4 shows how the disorder has affected punitive and authoritarian sentiments. The

percentage of respondents who strongly agree with the position that law-breakers should be

given harsher sentences increased by between 9% and 16%, to a new average of 44%. We

also find substantially greater agreement with the authoritarian statement that young people

don’t show enough respect for traditional values. These changes are observed across

boroughs with low, medium and high numbers of disorder-related incidents. These changes in

punitive and authoritarian sentiments are of remarkable magnitude; disorder and looting were

experienced as an assault on social order, and the public reacts by demanding harsher

punishment and by seeking affirmation of shared values.

Discussion

Our study finds that the policing of the disorder changed the public opinion of the police for

25% of Londoners. The disorder seems to have divided the public to a degree; among those

who changed their opinion of the police, about half say they now have a more positive

opinion of the police, whilst the other half says they now have a more negative view of the

police. This split in public opinion reflects the complexity of the London 2011 disorder, its

causes and the relationship between the public and the police. On the one side, the disorder

exposed the rift between some groups of the population and the police and brought into

media focus their deep-seated dissatisfaction with the way the police are treating them - not

listening and responding to their concerns, the alleged racial bias of the shooting of Mark

Duggan, and experienced racial bias in stop and search practices. On the other side, the

disorder and looting constituted a real threat to persons, life, property and social order from

which stems a forceful reminder of the need for a police service.

Yet, the majority of respondents reported that they did not change their opinion of the police

as a result of how the disorder was policed, but felt their opinions of police were confirmed.

Furthermore, the change in public opinion reported by 25% of the respondents is not reflected

in the before and after (the disorder) measurements of confidence in the police. There are

various reasons why this might be the case. First, it is possible that, because of the fifty-fifty

split, positive and negative changes have cancelled each other out on the aggregate level. Our

cross-sectional dataset does not allow us to empirically test this possibility. Panel data are

required to establish whether individual respondents changed their individual opinions.

Furthermore, it remains to be seen in future research whether the observed opinion change is

lasting, or short-lived with a quick return to previously held opinions. Second, the opinion

change might have been small – too small to result in moving a full response option up or

down on the confidence measure. Third, self-reported opinion change might not have

translated into a change in confidence in police. Trust and confidence in institutions are

thought to be attitudes relatively stable in nature (Bradford and Jackson 2010, Barber 1983,

Tilly 2005).

An important finding of our study is that preceding the disorder, overall confidence in police

and trust in procedural fairness and community engagement were markedly lower in the

boroughs that were hit hardest by the disorder. The MPS confidence model suggests that

trust in police procedural fairness and police community engagement are key drivers of

overall confidence in the police (Stanko and Bradford 2009, Stanko et al. 2012). This finding

supports the hypothesis that low levels of confidence in the police erodes public support for

police, and nurture the hate against police expressed in the anti-police riot elements of the

London disorder (Jackson and Bradford 2011, Reicher and Stott 2011 – but see Waddington,

2012). Trust and confidence are an important pillar of police legitimacy and linked to

people’s willingness to cooperate with the police and willingness to obey the law (Tyler and

Huo 2002, Tyler 2006, Tyler and Fagan 2008, Jackson et al. 2012). A lack of trust and

confidence undermines the perceived legitimacy of police. Anti-police riots, disorder and

looting are extreme forms of lack of willingness to cooperate with the police, and readiness

to break the law.

Although the relationship between the public and police is likely to have been a factor in

enabling the disorder and looting, the disorder will also have had deeper roots in feelings of

social exclusion, perceived social injustice and the lack of prospects (Natcen 2011,

LSE/Guardian 2011). This shows in the public response. Disorders are a threat to social

order, and signal damage to the social fabric (Bradford and Jackson 2011). Rioters and

looters did not show respect for the property of fellow Londoners, and arson threatened the

lives of some. A significant proportion of the participants in the disorder were teenagers and

young adults (Natcen 2011, LSE/Guardian 2011), and it is thus not surprising that our study

finds an increase in the proportion of Londoners who feel young people don’t have enough

respect for traditional values. We also found a substantial increase in the demand for harsher

punishment of law breakers.

Conclusions

Pictures of London burning flashed around the world. The Commissioner, in his preface to

the MPS’ reflection of the events those ‘four days in August 2011’ stated, ‘I cannot conceive

that there is a single person in this country who was not affected in some way by the

events…’ This article brings new insight into people’s opinions of the police immediately

before and after the events. Most Londoners experienced the disorder indirectly through the

media. This does not diminish the impact of the events. But what is more striking is that

Londoners largely affirm their commitment to policing. The data on those who have less

confidence in the police are consistent and persistent. The areas where Londoners reported

less confidence in police are the areas most affected by the disorder.

Finally, the differences in public trust and confidence in the police that already existed prior

to the disorder exist following the disorder: respondents living in boroughs hit hardest by the

disorder had substantially lower confidence in the police locally and London wide prior to

the disorder (and still do after). They also had substantially lower trust in police procedural

fairness (treatment) and police community engagement prior to the disorder (and still after) –

the two factors the confidence model identifies as the main drivers of overall confidence in

the police (Stanko and Bradford 2009, Stanko et al. 2012). As England and Wales prepares

itself for elected Police Commissioners, public attitudes to policing will be watched closely

by those wanting to oversee better policing service to local people. We must take seriously

the opinions of those who report less trust, and we can – and must - design better ways of

improving that trust (see Jackson, Bradford, Stanko and Hohl 2013).

References

Barber, B. (1983) The logic and limits of trust, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Bradford, B. (2011) ‘Convergence, Not Divergence?: Trends and Trajectories in Public

Contact and Confidence in the Police’, British Journal of Criminology, 50(1): 179-200

Bradford, B. and Jackson, J. (2010) Trust and confidence in the police: A conceptual review.

National Policing Improvement Agency Wiki, available at SSRN :

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1684508.

Bradford, B. and Jackson, J. (2011) ‘When trust is lost: The British and their Police after the

Tottenham Riots’, Books and ideas, available at

http://www.booksandideas.net/IMG/pdf/20111107_when-trust-is-lost.pdf

Bradford, B., Jackson, J. and Stanko, E. (2009) 'Contact and confidence: Revisiting the

impact of public encounters with the police', Policing and Society 19(1): 20-46

Flatley, J., Kershaw, C., Smith, K., Chaplin, R. and Moon, D. (eds) (2010) Crime in England

and Wales 2009/10, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/10 London: Home Office

The Guardian and London School of Economics: Reading the riots report (2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/series/reading-the-riots

HMIC. (2011). The rules of engagement: A review of the August 2011 disorders. London:

HMIC.

Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P. and Tyler, T. (2012) ‘Why do

people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions’, British

Journal of Criminology, online first

Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, B., and Hohl, K. (2013) Just Authority? Trust in the Police

in England and Wales, Oxon: Routledge

Miller, J., Davies, R., Henderson, N., Markovic, J. and Ortiz, C. (2004) ‘Public

opinion of the police: the influence of friends, family and new media’, New York: Vera

Foundation

Morrell, G., Scott, S., McNeish, D. and Webster, S. (2011) ‘The August riots in England.

Understanding the involvement of young people’, Natcen report, available at

http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/769712/the%20august%20riots%20in%20england%20we

b.pdf

Reicher, S. and Stott, C. (2011) Mad Mobs and Englishmen? Myths and Realities of the 2011

Riots, London: Constable and Robinson

Riots, Communities and Victims' Panel. (2012). After the Riots: The final report of the Riots,

Communities and Victims' Panel. London: Riots, Communities and Victims' Panel

Roberts, J.V. and Hough, M. (2005) Understanding public attitudes to criminal justice,

Maidenhead: Open University Press

Rosenbaum, D., Schuck, A., Costebllo, S., Hawkins, D. and Ring, M. (2005) ‘Attitudes

Toward the Police: The Effects of Direct and Vicarious Experience’, Police Quarterly, 83:

343-365

Skogan, W. (1990) The police and public in England and Wales: A British Crime Survey

Report, Home Office Research Study 117

Stanko, E. and Bradford, B. (2009) ‘Beyond Measuring “How Good a Job” Police Are

Doing: The MPS Model of Confidence in Policing’, Policing: A Journal of Policy and

Practice, 3(4): 322–30

Stanko, E., Jackson, J., Bradford, B. and Hohl, K. (2012) ‘A Golden Thread, a Presence

Amongst Uniforms, and a Good Deal of Data: Studying Public Confidence in the London

Metropolitan Police’, Policing & Society, online first

Tilly, C. (2005) Trust and rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tyler, T. (2006) Why People Obey the Law, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Chapter

3 and Chapter 12.

Tyler, T. R. and Huo, Y. J . (2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with

the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation

Tyler, T. R. and Fagan, J. (2008) ‘Legitimacy and cooperation: why do people help the police

fight crime in their communities?’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231-275

Waddington, P.A.J (2012) ‘Book Review of Reicher, S. and Stott, C. (2011) Mad Mobs and

Englishmen? Myths and Realities of the 2011 Riots’, Policing – A Journal of Policy and

Practice, 6 (2): 221-224

Weitzer, R. (2002) ‘Incidents of police misconduct and public opinion’, Journal of

Criminal Justice 30: 397-408

10

Table 1. Pre- and post-riot differences in public opinion of and confidence in policing.

Pre-riots Post-riots

Percentages 1 July - 6 Aug 9 Aug-30 Sep

Overall 63 63 14 11 60 6 9

Sex

Men 63 62 13 14 58 9 7

Women 63 64 15 9 61 4 11

Age

15-17 57 58 23 12 46 12 8

18-21 56 68 5 17 59 10 10

22-24 66 63 15 15 53 7 10

24-34 61 59 12 12 59 4 13

35-44 69 58 13 13 58 6 10

45-54 54 65 16 9 64 5 6

55-64 66 57 16 10 65 3 5

65-74 62 71 15 11 59 7 8

74-85 75 74 15 9 63 6 7

85+ 74 76 21 0 63 16 0

Ethnic group

White 66 64 15 11 60 6 8

Mixed 35 53 11 5 53 26 5

Asian 62 62 13 13 57 7 11

Black 56 58 12 11 58 5 14

Other 59 66 5 5 76 3 11

Refused 76 76 28 0 50 6 17

Black, male, aged <24 60 63 15 11 48 15 11

SEG

a+b 72 64 11 15 67 3 4

c1+c2 62 64 14 10 61 6 9

d+e 61 60 14 10 58 8 8

Refused 62 66 19 10 46 7 19

Employment status

Employed 63 62 14 13 59 5 8

Student 56 61 16 13 53 8 9

Housekeeper/retired 67 67 14 8 64 6 8

Unemployed/other 58 58 12 9 55 10 14

Victim of crime

No 65 64 15 10 61 6 9

Yes 54 51 12 17 52 12 8

Contact with police

No 66 64 13 11 63 4 9

Yes, negative experience 28 30 17 19 39 20 5

Yes, positive/neutral

experience 64 67 18 10 51 12 8

Legend

Sample size 3,077 1,039

Source: Metropolitan Police Public Attitudes Survey, 2011. Weighted data.

Interviews between 02/09/2011-30/09/2011 only.

Bold: Pre-/post riot difference

stat. significant at 95%

confidence level.

Grey shading: Small row sample size, n<50 cases.

Police doing a 'good' or

'excellent' job locally

Has the policing of the violent disorder

changed your opinion of the police?

Yes - for

better

Yes - for

worse

No - still

positive

No - still

negative

Don't

know

11

Pre-riots Post-riots

1 July - 6 Aug 9 Aug - 30 Sep

Confidence locally*

<50 incidents 65% 64%

50-99 incidents 68% 69%

>100 incidents 59% 59%

Confidence London-wide*

<50 incidents 61% 61%

50-99 incidents 65% 64%

>100 incidents 56% 57%

Effectiveness

<50 incidents 0.06 0.13

50-99 incidents 0.02 0.11

>100 incidents 0.06 -0.12

Treatment

<50 incidents 0.09 0.25

50-99 incidents 0.19 0.48

>100 incidents -0.01 0.00

Engagement

<50 incidents -0.01 0.07

50-99 incidents 0.01 0.19

>100 incidents -0.21 -0.14

Legend: Difference stat. significant at 95% confidence level marked in bold.

Sample size n=2467. Weighted data.

* Percentage of respondents saying the policing are doing a 'good' or 'excellent' job

Effectiveness: factor score, min=4.91 max=2.02 mean=0.15 SD=1.19

Treatment: factor score, min=-8.6 max=2.51 mean=0.03 SD=1.02

Engagement: factor score, min=-4.46 max=2.15 mean=-0.02 SD=1.23

Source: Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey, 2011.

Table 2. Pre- and post-riot differences in public perceptions of policing,

by number of riot-related incidents in the borough.

12

Pre-riots Post-riots

Percentages 1 July - 6 Aug 9 Aug - 30 Sep

General crime

<50 incidents 44 57

50-99 incidents 44 40

>100 incidents 49 46

General violence

<50 incidents 34 46

50-99 incidents 32 27

>100 incidents 34 38

Vandalism and graffiti

<50 incidents 41 50

50-99 incidents 38 33

>100 incidents 41 40

Teenagers hanging around

<50 incidents 50 58

50-99 incidents 44 43

>100 incidents 48 49

Knife crime

<50 incidents 14 15

50-99 incidents 15 14

>100 incidents 19 16

Druge dealing and using

<50 incidents 19 21

50-99 incidents 19 20

>100 incidents 20 21

Legend: Difference stat. significant at 95% confidence level marked in bold.

Sample size n=1420. Weighted data.

Source: Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey, 2011.

Table 3. Pre- and post-riot differences in public perceptions of crime,

by number of riot-related incidents in the borough.

13

i This data is calculated using crimes flagged as related to the disorder. This is an underestimate, but it clearly

demonstrates how localised the disorder was. ii Five years of survey data is now housed in the University of Essex Data Archives, and will be deposited there on a

yearly basis. The survey is continuous, reported quarterly, and has long term trends on confidence in policing in

London. iii

Note that for some of the groups we must be cautious in drawing conclusions (e.g. the youngest and oldest age

groups, ethnicity minorities), since the sample sizes for these groups result in uncertain estimates.

Table 4. Pre- and post-riot differences in authoritarian and punitive sentiments.

Percentages

strongly

agree agree

neither

agree/nor

disagree disagree

strongly

disagree don't know

Pre-riots (1 July - 6 Aug) 29 38 18 8 1 6

Post-riots (9 Aug- 30 Sep) 45 36 13 2 1 3

Pre-riots (1 July - 6 Aug) 26 37 23 7 1 6

Post-riots (9 Aug- 30 Sep) 44 31 14 6 0 5

Pre-riots (1 July - 6 Aug) 36 36 17 6 1 4

Post-riots (9 Aug- 30 Sep) 43 37 14 4 <1 2

Pre-riots (1 July - 6 Aug) 26 46 14 8 1 5

Post-riots (9 Aug- 30 Sep) 40 41 11 5 1 2

Pre-riots (1 July - 6 Aug) 23 43 17 10 1 7

Post-riots (9 Aug- 30 Sep) 42 36 12 6 1 4

Pre-riots (1 July - 6 Aug) 30 37 16 10 3 4

Post-riots (9 Aug- 30 Sep) 41 38 13 6 1 1

Legend: Difference stat. significant at 95% confidence level marked in bold. Sample size n=3077.

Source: Metropolitan Police Public Attitudes Survey, 2011. Weighted data.

Boroughs with 50-100 riot-related incidents

Boroughs with >100 riot-related incidents

"People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences"

Boroughs with >100 riot-related incidents

Boroughs with <50 riot-related incidents

"Young people today don’t have enough respect for traditional values"

Boroughs with <50 riot-related incidents

Boroughs with 50-100 riot-related incidents